God exists and its perfectly evident

[vanillaicecream]

He cannot create anything less than perfect because he cannot create anything less than perfect

View attachment 2053475

Nope, i gave a very specific example of mechanisms and attributes of an agent causing their actions to follow from that, stop projecting and pretending I'm just asserting it because that's what you are doing. And you still haven't explained how you can detect God's perfection since his creation is all we can observe and that has many patterns and examples or imperfection. I ask again, what is God's perfection good for and how can you detect it when all you have to look at is his not entirely perfect creation?

Which premise of my argument is false?

You are baldly asserting that god is perfect because he has to be perfect because he is the opposite of imperfect and then running around in that circle repeatedly. I don't know what else I can say to make you realize your argument is completely and utterly circular and an attempt to presuppose and define something into reality.

"A perfect being is necessarily perfect". I agree, now show how and why he is perfect instead of presupposing it and going from there. Perfection isn't an intrinsic quality of a conscious agent, so I don't know how you go from conscious agent to perfection as if it has to be so.

 

[Kylo]

I can say to make you realize your argument is completely and utterly circular and an attempt to presuppose and define something into reality.

Dude it’s a far cry saying something is such and such and defining it into existence… u can’t be this stupid. Impossible… If I said such and such unicorn is a thing that has a horn that a far cry from saying the unicorn exists and has a horn …

Were a unicorn to exist, then would have a horn (be such and such way)

 

[vanillaicecream]

Dude it’s a far cry saying something is such and such and defining it into existence… u can’t be this stupid. Impossible… If I said such and such unicorn is a thing that has a horn that a far cry from saying the unicorn exists and has horn …

Were a unicorn to exist, then would have horns (be such and such way)

It is precisely and exactly defining it into existence because you have no precedent and prior observation to go off of, it doesn't matter if the proposed object is logical in and of itself, I can make up many characters in my head that are internally consistent and not logically contradictory, but if I'm attempting to sell it as a property of actual existence I need a precedent to justify it as opposed to just define it and assume it's real because it doesn't contain any logical errors within it's own description.

 

[Kylo]

It is precisely and exactly defining it into existence because you have no precedent and prior observation to go off of, it doesn't matter if the proposed object is logical in and of itself, I can make up many characters in my head that are internally consistent and not logically contradictory, but if I'm attempting to sell it as a property of actual existence I need a precedent to justify it as opposed to just define it and assume it's real because it doesn't contain any logical errors within it's own description.

No where do I define anything into existence… you’re experiencing some serious dunning kruger bro. I allow for it to be purely conceptual with no reality but it doesn’t follow we can’t reason about conceptual things and see their consequence

 

[Kylo]

defining it into existence because you have no precedent and prior observation to go off of

I have no precedent and prior observation of hogwarts am I therefore defining hogwarts into existence?

 

[vanillaicecream]

it doesn’t follow we can’t reason about conceptual things and see their consequence

Exactly, and what is that consequence? That's what I've been saying about "God's creation" not following from his very nature of perfection so I have no idea how you can tell there's even a god there for we to observe his consequence. What are some other God's attributes that interact with the universe and how can you detect it? Since you can't do this with his "perfection" I'll let you use something else.

I have no precedent and prior observation of hogwarts am I therefore defining hogwarts into existence?

Facepalm. Hogwarts isn't supposed to exist outside a fictional story and its precedent within the story is Hogwarts itself being self-evident, observable and distinguishable from anything else. You don't have that with any invisible conscious being that you're trying to argue is a property of reality, much less when you attach abstract concepts and qualities contingent on a thinking mind to it that you can't clearly define other than say it's the opposite of imperfect when imperfect itself has no objective standards to it and doesn't exist outside a mind either.

 

[Kylo]

Facepalm. Hogwarts isn't supposed to exist outside a fictional story and its precedent is Hogwarts itself being self-evident

The point being actual existence is not presupposed in my not having had prior observation of hogwarts thank u… have a good day, man!

 

[ascendedd]

Problem is why would god make it so hard for us to be sure of which god is real. u could argue he won’t show himself to us because he wants to test our faith but we all universally know 2+2 is 4 with god u just gotta guess if it’s Christian catholic evangelical Muslim Hindu. And in most of these bibles it says if u don’t follow u will go to hell

just because the answer to 2+2 is not 5, does not mean answer to 2+2 cannot be four

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

Why is God "perfect"? How can "perfect" be a thing? What causes his perfection? What is that based on? If he is maximally everything then is he also maximally stupid? If he is perfect then why would he create us when that denotes a lack of something which is in direct contradiction with perfection? A god that is perfect is self sustainable and doesn't need anything, much less a bunch of sentient primates acknowledging his existence and praising him. Any change towards a new state implies that the prior state wasn't perfect.

God says there is nothing that He needs to do or nothing for Him to acquire

Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 3, Verse 22

If the Lord felt dissatisfied and needed to create the worlds then why is He also Shiva who has the power to destroy the worlds?

So He creates because He feels better to create and then destroys because He decides it is better to destroy?

Definitely not.

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

just because the answer to 2+2 is not 5, does not mean answer to 2+2 cannot be four

How do you know 2+2 is not 5?

 

[ascendedd]

How do you know 2+2 is not 5?

because it hasn't been disproven yet. while god is an entity that hasn't been proven or disproven.

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

"God doesn't exist, He's imaginary"

Sure thing lol

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

God must just be a sadist.

Creates us with sin. Living a life of suffering and pain.

Also I think of the massive sacrifices he made after raping and impregnating a woman, whose son is fully human and fully god. So he sacrificed himself for our sins, which he created. Only to say jk I ain’t dead

"...this transient world full of misery..."

Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 9, Verse 33

The Lord Himself admits that this world is full of misery.

 

[GuyFromSingapore]

It is precisely and exactly defining it into existence because you have no precedent and prior observation to go off of, it doesn't matter if the proposed object is logical in and of itself, I can make up many characters in my head that are internally consistent and not logically contradictory, but if I'm attempting to sell it as a property of actual existence I need a precedent to justify it as opposed to just define it and assume it's real because it doesn't contain any logical errors within it's own description.

That's true though.

Some theories in Physics are logical yet are false.

 

[Deleted member 17872]

Because Kuhn is approaching the issue as a historian and describing what he has seen happen in science, not what ought to be happening in science. He is avoiding the question, so to me it is a cop out.

Whereas, Popper has a respectable go at it. Is it perfect? No, but it's a model we can work with.

Then feyerabend refines Kuhn's ideas and uses it to address the question. What should scientists be doing? Whatever the fuck they want

That's how I see it

You are seeing it in a wrong way. You are undermining Kuhn’s contribution.

Popper’s falsification might sound good in theory but is completely detached to how science is practised. Ofcourse Kuhn’s perspectivism is not perfect but it gives us an idea on how science is practised.

As for what scientists should be doing, trying to understand reality through rigorous experimentation.

As for which perspective is right. One which is the most experimentally and logically robust.

 

[Lorsss]

Defining god as the one who originated everything does not imply that god currently rules the universe and behaves the way that Bible or Quran says.

 

[Ghost Philosophy]

Defining god as the one who originated everything does not imply that god currently rules the universe and behaves the way that Bible or Quran says.

Unrelated, but ignore your PM, it's been fixed!

 

[mogger123]

You are seeing it in a wrong way. You are undermining Kuhn’s contribution.

you can't just say im seeing it in a wrong way, you have to explain how im seeing it wrong

Popper’s falsification might sound good in theory but is completely detached to how science is practised. Ofcourse Kuhn’s perspectivism is not perfect but it gives us an idea on how science is practised.

you are regurgitating previous points, which I have already addressed. Popper is concerned with what scientists ought to be doing, whereas Kuhn is concerned with what scientists have been doing. clearly, Kuhn's will have more basis in reality

consider this. just because a value of pi rounded to 10 d.p is widely used in engineering, doesn't mean it is more "right" than treating it as an irrational number

As for what scientists should be doing, trying to understand reality through rigorous experimentation.

As for which perspective is right. One which is the most experimentally and logically robust.

far too vague imo.

 

[Deleted member 17872]

you can't just say im seeing it in a wrong way, you have to explain how im seeing it wrong

For that you have to explain why Kuhn is wrong and not just muh it results in "anything goes"

you are regurgitating previous points, which I have already addressed. Popper is concerned with what scientists ought to be doing, whereas Kuhn is concerned with what scientists have been doing. clearly, Kuhn's will have more basis in reality

So you are saying an imaginary theory which has no basis in reality reflect science more accurately than one which is completely rooted in reality.

So you believe in miracles now?

consider this. just because a value of pi rounded to 10 d.p is widely used in engineering, doesn't mean it is more "right" than treating it as an irrational number

nobody is saying that.

far too vague imo.

Like Falsification is any less vague.

 

[MoggerChad]

But then why does he let african children starve to death